Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting.

BACKGROUND: With large waves of infection driven by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), alongside evidence of waning immunity after the booster dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine, several countries have begun giving at-risk persons a fourth vaccine dose. METHODS: To evaluate the early effectiveness of a fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine for the prevention of Covid-19-related outcomes, we analyzed data recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from January 3 to February 18, 2022. We evaluated the relative effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose as compared with that of a third dose given at least 4 months earlier among persons 60 years of age or older. We compared outcomes in persons who had received a fourth dose with those in persons who had not, individually matching persons from these two groups with respect to multiple sociodemographic and clinical variables. A sensitivity analysis was performed with the use of parametric Poisson regression. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 182,122 matched pairs. Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7 to 30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 47) against polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53 to 58) against symptomatic Covid-19, 68% (95% CI, 59 to 74) against Covid-19-related hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50 to 74) against severe Covid-19, and 74% (95% CI, 50 to 90) against Covid-19-related death. The corresponding estimates in days 14 to 30 after the fourth dose were 52% (95% CI, 49 to 54), 61% (95% CI, 58 to 64), 72% (95% CI, 63 to 79), 64% (95% CI, 48 to 77), and 76% (95% CI, 48 to 91). In days 7 to 30 after a fourth vaccine dose, the difference in the absolute risk (three doses vs. four doses) was 180.1 cases per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 142.8 to 211.9) for Covid-19-related hospitalization and 68.8 cases per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 48.5 to 91.9) for severe Covid-19. In sensitivity analyses, estimates of relative effectiveness against documented infection were similar to those in the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was effective in reducing the short-term risk of Covid-19-related outcomes among persons who had received a third dose at least 4 months earlier. (Funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.).

Comparative Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines in U.S. Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are more than 90% effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, their comparative effectiveness for a range of outcomes across diverse populations is unknown. METHODS: We emulated a target trial using the electronic health records of U.S. veterans who received a first dose of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine between January 4 and May 14, 2021, during a period marked by predominance of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant. We matched recipients of each vaccine in a 1:1 ratio according to their risk factors. Outcomes included documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, symptomatic Covid-19, hospitalization for Covid-19, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for Covid-19, and death from Covid-19. We estimated risks using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. To assess the influence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant, we emulated a second target trial that involved veterans vaccinated between July 1 and September 20, 2021. RESULTS: Each vaccine group included 219,842 persons. Over 24 weeks of follow-up in a period marked by alpha-variant predominance, the estimated risk of documented infection was 5.75 events per 1000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.39 to 6.23) in the BNT162b2 group and 4.52 events per 1000 persons (95% CI, 4.17 to 4.84) in the mRNA-1273 group. The excess number of events per 1000 persons for BNT162b2 as compared with mRNA-1273 was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.81) for documented infection, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.70) for symptomatic Covid-19, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.83) for hospitalization for Covid-19, 0.10 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.26) for ICU admission for Covid-19, and 0.02 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.12) for death from Covid-19. The corresponding excess risk (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273) of documented infection over 12 weeks of follow-up in a period marked by delta-variant predominance was 6.54 events per 1000 persons (95% CI, -2.58 to 11.82). CONCLUSIONS: The 24-week risk of Covid-19 outcomes was low after vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2, although risks were lower with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2. This pattern was consistent across periods marked by alpha- and delta-variant predominance. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others.).

BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness against Omicron in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence is available on the real-world effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and specifically against infection with the omicron variant among children 5 to 11 years of age. METHODS: Using data from the largest health care organization in Israel, we identified a cohort of children 5 to 11 years of age who were vaccinated on or after November 23, 2021, and matched them with unvaccinated controls to estimate the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 among newly vaccinated children during the omicron wave. Vaccine effectiveness against documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and symptomatic Covid-19 was estimated after the first and second vaccine doses. The cumulative incidence of each outcome in the two study groups through January 7, 2022, was estimated with the use of the Kaplan-Meier estimator, and vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 minus the risk ratio. Vaccine effectiveness was also estimated in age subgroups. RESULTS: Among 136,127 eligible children who had been vaccinated during the study period, 94,728 were matched with unvaccinated controls. The estimated vaccine effectiveness against documented infection was 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7 to 25) at 14 to 27 days after the first dose and 51% (95% CI, 39 to 61) at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. The absolute risk difference between the study groups at days 7 to 21 after the second dose was 1905 events per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 1294 to 2440) for documented infection and 599 events per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 296 to 897) for symptomatic Covid-19. The estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 was 18% (95% CI, -2 to 34) at 14 to 27 days after the first dose and 48% (95% CI, 29 to 63) at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. We observed a trend toward higher vaccine effectiveness in the youngest age group (5 or 6 years of age) than in the oldest age group (10 or 11 years of age). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that as omicron was becoming the dominant variant, two doses of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine provided moderate protection against documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic Covid-19 in children 5 to 11 years of age. (Funded by the European Union through the VERDI project and others.).

Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

Metformin Use in the First Trimester of Pregnancy and Risk for Nonlive Birth and Congenital Malformations: Emulating a Target Trial Using Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a first-line pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, but there is limited evidence about its safety in early pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the teratogenicity of metformin use in the first trimester of pregnancy. DESIGN: In an observational cohort of pregnant women with pregestational type 2 diabetes receiving metformin monotherapy before the last menstrual period (LMP), a target trial with 2 treatment strategies was emulated: insulin monotherapy (discontinue metformin treatment and initiate insulin within 90 days of LMP) or insulin plus metformin (continue metformin and initiate insulin within 90 days of LMP). SETTING: U.S. Medicaid health care administration database (2000 to 2018). PARTICIPANTS: 12 489 pregnant women who met the eligibility criteria. MEASUREMENTS: The risk and risk ratio of nonlive births, live births with congenital malformations, and congenital malformations among live births were estimated using standardization to adjust for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 850 women were in the insulin monotherapy group and 1557 in the insulin plus metformin group. The estimated risk for nonlive birth was 32.7% under insulin monotherapy (reference) and 34.3% under insulin plus metformin (risk ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]). The estimated risk for live birth with congenital malformations was 8.0% (CI, 5.7% to 10.2%) under insulin monotherapy and 5.7% (CI, 4.5% to 7.3%) under insulin plus metformin (risk ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.51 to 1.09]). LIMITATION: Possible residual confounding by glycemic control and body mass index. CONCLUSION: Compared with switching to insulin monotherapy, continuing metformin and adding insulin in early pregnancy resulted in little to no increased risk for nonlive birth among women receiving metformin before pregnancy. Under conventional statistical criteria, anything between a 49% decrease and a 9% increase in risk for congenital malformations was highly compatible with our data. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a target trial emulation in the FEP-CAUSAL Collaboration.

Good adherence to antipsychotic therapy helps prevent relapses in first-episode psychosis (FEP). We used data from the FEP-CAUSAL Collaboration, an international consortium of observational cohorts, to emulate a target trial comparing antipsychotics, with treatment discontinuation as the primary outcome. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization. We benchmarked our results to estimates from the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial, a randomized trial conducted in the 2000s. We included 1097 patients with a psychotic disorder and less than 2 years since psychosis onset. Inverse-probability weighting was used to control for confounding. The estimated 12-month risks of discontinuation for aripiprazole, first-generation agents, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, and risperidone were 61.5% (95% CI, 52.5-70.6), 73.5% (95% CI, 60.5-84.9), 76.8% (95% CI, 67.2-85.3), 58.4% (95% CI, 40.4-77.4), 76.5% (95% CI, 62.1-88.5), and 74.4% (95% CI, 67.0-81.2), respectively. Compared with aripiprazole, the 12-month risk differences were -15.3% (95% CI, -30.0 to 0.0) for olanzapine, -12.8% (95% CI, -25.7 to -1.0) for risperidone, and 3.0% (95% CI, -21.5 to 30.8) for paliperidone. The 12-month risks of hospitalization were similar between agents. Our estimates support use of aripiprazole and paliperidone as first-line therapies for FEP. Benchmarking yielded similar results for discontinuation and absolute risks of hospitalization as in the original trial, suggesting that data from the FEP-CAUSAL Collaboration sufficed to remove confounding for these clinical questions. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.

BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting.

BACKGROUND: As mass vaccination campaigns against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) commence worldwide, vaccine effectiveness needs to be assessed for a range of outcomes across diverse populations in a noncontrolled setting. In this study, data from Israel's largest health care organization were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. METHODS: All persons who were newly vaccinated during the period from December 20, 2020, to February 1, 2021, were matched to unvaccinated controls in a 1:1 ratio according to demographic and clinical characteristics. Study outcomes included documented infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), symptomatic Covid-19, Covid-19-related hospitalization, severe illness, and death. We estimated vaccine effectiveness for each outcome as one minus the risk ratio, using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. RESULTS: Each study group included 596,618 persons. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows: for documented infection, 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 51) and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95); for symptomatic Covid-19, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) and 94% (95% CI, 87 to 98); for hospitalization, 74% (95% CI, 56 to 86) and 87% (95% CI, 55 to 100); and for severe disease, 62% (95% CI, 39 to 80) and 92% (95% CI, 75 to 100), respectively. Estimated effectiveness in preventing death from Covid-19 was 72% (95% CI, 19 to 100) for days 14 through 20 after the first dose. Estimated effectiveness in specific subpopulations assessed for documented infection and symptomatic Covid-19 was consistent across age groups, with potentially slightly lower effectiveness in persons with multiple coexisting conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting suggests that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective for a wide range of Covid-19-related outcomes, a finding consistent with that of the randomized trial.

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting.

BACKGROUND: Preapproval trials showed that messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had a good safety profile, yet these trials were subject to size and patient-mix limitations. An evaluation of the safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine with respect to a broad range of potential adverse events is needed. METHODS: We used data from the largest health care organization in Israel to evaluate the safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. For each potential adverse event, in a population of persons with no previous diagnosis of that event, we individually matched vaccinated persons to unvaccinated persons according to sociodemographic and clinical variables. Risk ratios and risk differences at 42 days after vaccination were derived with the use of the Kaplan-Meier estimator. To place these results in context, we performed a similar analysis involving SARS-CoV-2-infected persons matched to uninfected persons. The same adverse events were studied in the vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection analyses. RESULTS: In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6), lymphadenopathy (risk ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.05 to 2.78; risk difference, 78.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 64.1 to 89.3), appendicitis (risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.01; risk difference, 5.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 0.3 to 9.9), and herpes zoster infection (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.73; risk difference, 15.8 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.2 to 24.2). SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8) and of additional serious adverse events, including pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting, the BNT162b2 vaccine was not associated with an elevated risk of most of the adverse events examined. The vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons). The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.).

Estimating the Effect of Bariatric Surgery on Cardiovascular Events Using Observational Data?

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported strongly protective effects of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular disease, but with oversimplified definitions of the intervention, eligibility criteria, and follow-up, which deviate from those in a randomized trial. We describe an attempt to estimate the effect of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular disease without introducing these sources of bias, which may not be entirely possible with existing observational data. METHODS: We propose two target trials among persons with diabetes: (1) bariatric operation (vs. no operation) among individuals who have undergone preoperative preparation (lifestyle modifications and screening) and (2) preoperative preparation and a bariatric operation (vs. neither preoperative nor operative component). We emulated both target trials using observational data of US veterans. RESULTS: Comparing bariatric surgery with no surgery (target trial #1; 8,087 individuals), the 7-year cardiovascular risk was 18.0% (95% CI = 6.9, 32.7) in the surgery group and 18.9% (95% CI = 17.7, 20.1) in the no-surgery group (risk difference -0.9, 95% CI = -12.0, 14.0). Comparing preoperative components plus surgery vs. neither (target trial #2; 10,065 individuals), the 7-year cardiovascular risk was 17.4% (95% CI = 13.6, 22.0) in the surgery group and 18.8% (95% CI = 17.8, 19.9) in the no-surgery group (risk difference -1.4, 95% CI = -5.1, 3.2). Body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were reduced with bariatric interventions in both emulations. CONCLUSIONS: Within limitations of available observational data, our estimates do not provide evidence that bariatric surgery reduces cardiovascular disease and support equipoise for a randomized trial of bariatric surgery for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Comparison of the Test-negative Design and Cohort Design With Explicit Target Trial Emulation for Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are used for estimating vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions. The practical performance of two common approaches-cohort and test-negative designs-need to be compared for COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We compared the cohort and test-negative designs to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 outcomes using nationwide data from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Specifically, we (1) explicitly emulated a target trial using follow-up data and evaluated the potential for confounding using negative controls and benchmarking to a randomized trial, (2) performed case-control sampling of the cohort to confirm empirically that the same estimate is obtained, (3) further restricted the sampling to person-days with a test, and (4) implemented additional features of a test-negative design. We also compared their performance in limited datasets. RESULTS: Estimated BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness was similar under all four designs. Empirical results suggested limited residual confounding by healthcare-seeking behavior. Analyses in limited datasets showed evidence of residual confounding, with estimates biased downward in the cohort design and upward in the test-negative design. CONCLUSION: Vaccine effectiveness estimates under a cohort design with explicit target trial emulation and a test-negative design were similar when using rich information from the VA healthcare system, but diverged in opposite directions when using a limited dataset. In settings like ours with sufficient information on confounders and other key variables, the cohort design with explicit target trial emulation may be preferable as a principled approach that allows estimation of absolute risks and facilitates interpretation of effect estimates.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines as First Booster Doses in England: An Observational Study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

BACKGROUND: The UK delivered its first "booster" COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273. METHODS: With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1-14, 15-42, 43-69, 70-97, 98-126, 127-152, and 155-182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture. RESULTS: We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non-COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID-19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes.

Use of the instrumental inequalities in simulated mendelian randomization analyses with coarsened exposures.

Mendelian randomization (MR) requires strong unverifiable assumptions to estimate causal effects. However, for categorical exposures, the MR assumptions can be falsified using a method known as the instrumental inequalities. To apply the instrumental inequalities to a continuous exposure, investigators must coarsen the exposure, a process which can itself violate the MR conditions. Violations of the instrumental inequalities for an MR model with a coarsened exposure might therefore reflect the effect of coarsening rather than other sources of bias. We aim to evaluate how exposure coarsening affects the ability of the instrumental inequalities to detect bias in MR models with multiple proposed instruments under various causal structures. To do so, we simulated data mirroring existing studies of the effect of alcohol consumption on cardiovascular disease under a variety of exposure-outcome effects in which the MR assumptions were met for a continuous exposure. We categorized the exposure based on subject matter knowledge or the observed data distribution and applied the instrumental inequalities to MR models for the effects of the coarsened exposure. In simulations of multiple binary instruments, the instrumental inequalities did not detect bias under any magnitude of exposure outcome effect when the exposure was coarsened into more than 2 categories. However, in simulations of both single and multiple proposed instruments, the instrumental inequalities were violated in some scenarios when the exposure was dichotomized. The results of these simulations suggest that the instrumental inequalities are largely insensitive to bias due to exposure coarsening with greater than 2 categories, and could be used with coarsened exposures to evaluate the required assumptions in applied MR studies, even when the underlying exposure is truly continuous.

Prospective benchmarking of an observational analysis in the SWEDEHEART registry against the REDUCE-AMI randomized trial.

Prospective benchmarking of an observational analysis against a randomized trial increases confidence in the benchmarking process as it relies exclusively on aligning the protocol of the trial and the observational analysis, while the trials findings are unavailable. The Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of Betablockers After Myocardial Infarction (REDUCE-AMI, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03278509) trial started recruitment in September 2017 and results are expected in 2024. REDUCE-AMI aimed to estimate the effect of long-term use of beta blockers on the risk of death and myocardial following a myocardial infarction with preserved left ventricular systolic ejection fraction. We specified the protocol of a target trial as similar as possible to that of REDUCE-AMI, then emulated the target trial using observational data from Swedish healthcare registries. Had everyone followed the treatment strategy as specified in the target trial protocol, the observational analysis estimated a reduction in the 5-year risk of death or myocardial infarction of 0.8 percentage points for beta blockers compared with no beta blockers; effects ranging from an absolute reduction of 4.5 percentage points to an increase of 2.8 percentage points in the risk of death or myocardial infarction were compatible with our data under conventional statistical criteria. Once results of REDUCE-AMI are published, we will compare the results of our observational analysis against those from the trial. If this prospective benchmarking is successful, it supports the credibility of additional analyses using these observational data, which can rapidly deliver answers to questions that could not be answered by the initial trial. If benchmarking proves unsuccessful, we will conduct a "postmortem" analysis to identify the reasons for the discrepancy. Prospective benchmarking shifts the investigator focus away from an endeavour to use observational data to obtain similar results as a completed randomized trial, to a systematic attempt to align the design and analysis of the trial and the observational analysis.

Effectiveness of Bedaquiline Use beyond Six Months in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Rationale: Current recommendations for the treatment of rifampicin- and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis include bedaquiline (BDQ) used for 6 months or longer. Evidence is needed to inform the optimal duration of BDQ. Objectives: We emulated a target trial to estimate the effect of three BDQ duration treatment strategies (6, 7-11, and ⩾12 mo) on the probability of successful treatment among patients receiving a longer individualized regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Methods: To estimate the probability of successful treatment, we implemented a three-step approach comprising cloning, censoring, and inverse probability weighting. Measurements and Main Results: The 1,468 eligible individuals received a median of 4 (interquartile range, 4-5) likely effective drugs. In 87.1% and 77.7% of participants, this included linezolid and clofazimine, respectively. The adjusted probability of successful treatment was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.88) for 6 months of BDQ, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) for 7-11 months, and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) for ⩾12 months. Compared with 6 months of BDQ, the ratio of treatment success was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) for 7-11 months and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.96-1.06) for ⩾12 months. Naive analyses that did not account for bias revealed a higher probability of successful treatment with ⩾12 months (ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.14]). Conclusions: BDQ use beyond 6 months did not increase the probability of successful treatment among patients receiving longer regimens that commonly included new and repurposed drugs. When not properly accounted for, immortal person-time bias can influence estimates of the effects of treatment duration. Future analyses should explore the effect of treatment duration of BDQ and other drugs in subgroups with advanced disease and/or receiving less potent regimens.

Drug Repurposing and Observational Studies: The Case of Antivirals for the Treatment of COVID-19.

Remdesivir and molnupiravir were the only 2 repurposed antivirals that were approved for emergency use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both drugs received their emergency use authorization on the basis of a single industry-funded phase 3 trial, which was launched after evidence of in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), little in vitro evidence was generated, no randomized trials for early treatment were done, and the drug was not considered for authorization. Yet, by the summer of 2020, observational evidence suggested a substantially lower risk for severe COVID-19 in TDF users compared with nonusers. The decision-making process for the launching of randomized trials for these 3 drugs is reviewed. Observational data in favor of TDF was systematically dismissed, even though no viable alternative explanations were proposed for the lower risk for severe COVID-19 among TDF users. Lessons learned from the TDF example during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic are described, and the use of observational clinical data to guide decisions about the launch of randomized trials during the next public health emergency is proposed. The goal is that gatekeepers of randomized trials make better use of the available observational evidence for the repurposing of drugs without commercial value.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

Effectiveness of a Second Dose of an mRNA Vaccine Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron Infection in Individuals Previously Infected by Other Variants.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose vaccination was widely recommended in the pre-Omicron era for persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of a second vaccine dose in this group in the Omicron era is unknown. METHODS: We linked nationwide population registries in Spain to identify community-dwelling individuals aged 18-64, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before single-dose mRNA vaccination (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2). Every day between 3 January and 6 February 2022 we matched 1:1 individuals receiving a second mRNA vaccine dose and controls on sex, age, province, first dose type and time, month of primary infection, and number of previous tests. We then estimated Kaplan-Meier risks of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. We performed a similar analysis in a Delta-dominant period, between 19 July and 30 November 2021. RESULTS: In the Omicron period, estimated effectiveness (95% CI) of a second dose was 62.2% (58.2-66.4%) 7-34 days after administration, similar across groups defined by age, sex, type of first vaccine, and time since the first dose. Estimated effectiveness was 65.4% (61.1-69.9%) for mRNA-1273 and 52.0% (41.8-63.1%) for BNT162b2. Estimated effectiveness was 78.5% (67.4-89.9%), 66.1% (54.9-77.5%), and 60.2% (55.5-64.8%) when primary infection had occurred in the Delta, Alpha, and pre-Alpha periods, respectively. In the Delta period, the estimated effectiveness of a second dose was 8.8% (-55.3% to 81.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, over 1 month after administration, a second dose of mRNA vaccine increases protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron variant among individuals with single-dose vaccination and previously infected with another variant.

Evaluating Model Specification When Using the Parametric G-Formula in the Presence of Censoring.

The noniterative conditional expectation (NICE) parametric g-formula can be used to estimate the causal effect of sustained treatment strategies. In addition to identifiability conditions, the validity of the NICE parametric g-formula generally requires the correct specification of models for time-varying outcomes, treatments, and confounders at each follow-up time point. An informal approach for evaluating model specification is to compare the observed distributions of the outcome, treatments, and confounders with their parametric g-formula estimates under the "natural course." In the presence of loss to follow-up, however, the observed and natural-course risks can differ even if the identifiability conditions of the parametric g-formula hold and there is no model misspecification. Here, we describe 2 approaches for evaluating model specification when using the parametric g-formula in the presence of censoring: 1) comparing factual risks estimated by the g-formula with nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimates and 2) comparing natural-course risks estimated by inverse probability weighting with those estimated by the g-formula. We also describe how to correctly compute natural-course estimates of time-varying covariate means when using a computationally efficient g-formula algorithm. We evaluate the proposed methods via simulation and implement them to estimate the effects of dietary interventions in 2 cohort studies.

Emulating a Target Trial of Interventions Initiated During Pregnancy with Healthcare Databases: The Example of COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are often the only option to estimate effects of interventions during pregnancy. Causal inference from observational data can be conceptualized as an attempt to emulate a hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial: the target trial. OBJECTIVE: To provide a step-by-step description of how to use healthcare databases to estimate the effects of interventions initiated during pregnancy. As an example, we describe how to specify and emulate a target trial of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, but the framework can be generally applied to point and sustained strategies involving both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: First, we specify the protocol of a target trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vaccination during pregnancy. Second, we describe how to use observational data to emulate each component of the protocol of the target trial. We propose different target trials for different gestational periods because the outcomes of interest vary by gestational age at exposure. We identify challenges that affect (i) the target trial and thus its observational emulation (censoring and competing events), and (ii) mostly the observational emulation (confounding, immortal time, and measurement biases). CONCLUSION: Some biases may be unavoidable in observational emulations, but others are avoidable. For instance, immortal time bias can be avoided by aligning the start of follow-up with the gestational age at the time of the intervention, as we would do in the target trial. Explicitly emulating target trials at different gestational ages can help reduce bias and improve the interpretability of effect estimates for interventions during pregnancy.

Evaluating Metformin Strategies for Cancer Prevention: A Target Trial Emulation Using Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Metformin users appear to have a substantially lower risk of cancer than nonusers in many observational studies. These inverse associations may be explained by common flaws in observational analyses that can be avoided by explicitly emulating a target trial. METHODS: We emulated target trials of metformin therapy and cancer risk using population-based linked electronic health records from the UK (2009-2016). We included individuals with diabetes, no history of cancer, no recent prescription for metformin or other glucose-lowering medication, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <64 mmol/mol (<8.0%). Outcomes included total cancer and 4 site-specific cancers (breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate). We estimated risks using pooled logistic regression with adjustment for risk factors via inverse-probability weighting. We emulated a second target trial among individuals regardless of diabetes status. We compared our estimates with those obtained using previously applied analytic approaches. RESULTS: Among individuals with diabetes, the estimated 6-year risk differences (metformin - no metformin) were -0.2% (95% CI = -1.6%, 1.3%) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 0.0% (95% CI = -2.1%, 2.3%) in the per-protocol analysis. The corresponding estimates for all site-specific cancers were close to zero. Among individuals regardless of diabetes status, these estimates were also close to zero and more precise. By contrast, previous analytic approaches yielded estimates that appeared strongly protective. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that metformin therapy does not meaningfully influence cancer incidence. The findings highlight the importance of explicitly emulating a target trial to reduce bias in the effect estimates derived from observational analyses.